The present invention relates to monitoring cargo while in transit, and in particular to a portable, reusable electronic device that provides for locking and tracking of cargo containers.
The shipment of goods via containers was introduced in the early 1950s as an alternative to the ancient method of general loose cargo handling (also known as break-bulk shipping). Since then, container shipping has become a preferred way to move merchandise, especially over international routes, and has displaced break-bulk shipping for all but the largest of goods. Containers provide many advantages including:                cargo may move from an inland point of origin in one continent to an inland of destination in another continent, without the need to handle the cargo itself, so that a container may move seamlessly among a multiple modes of transportation from a truck chassis onto a container ship and then back again onto another truck, rail, or barge;        standardization of container unit size, which has introduced significant efficiencies into the management of shipping, warehousing and general distribution processes; and        greater security from theft and improved protection from breakage, since it avoids the manual handling that is required for break-bulk or general loose cargo shipments.        
Dramatic growth in the container shipping industry is one result of these improved efficiencies and lower cost of transport. Container shipping has been, in fact, an important mechanism in allowing manufacturers around the world to be competitive in foreign markets.
The container industry is still a relatively fragmented industry of more than 500 companies operating thousands of vessels. As the number of carriers increases, the frequency of sailings and the speed of vessels improve, providing manufacturers with the ability to offer products around the world with shorter delivery times and lower transportation costs. In the U.S. alone, for example, there are 32,000 import and 2,500 export companies who utilize services provided by others. There are no reports available that identify the number of shippers around the world, but the number of individual companies utilizing international container shipping in some form or another has probably grown to the hundreds of thousands.
While containerization allows goods to be transported from an origin point to a destination point in a single medium, tracking a shipment requires participation of a wide variety of vendors within the supply chain. This is becoming increasingly important, because as shippers try to maintain correct inventory levels, they need greater visibility into the status and location of their shipments. One of the challenges to overcome is a lack of information standardization between vendors. Communication between all parties involved typically does not exist.
Consider the typical steps involved in moving a container from an in-land origin point to an in-land overseas destination. First, a shipper requests that his goods be moved, by contracting it with a carrier or freight forwarder. The carrier/forwarder then notifies a trucking company of the request, who then dispatches a truck to a designated port to pick up an empty container. The port releases a container, and the trucking company delivers the empty container to the shipper's location. The shipper inspects, loads and seals the container, releasing it to the trucking company.
The trucking company then moves the sealed container to a designated port. The port accepts the container, and positions it to be loaded on a vessel. The port then advises the carrier of the arrival of the container. Next, when a vessel arrives, the port loads the container, and confirms to the carrier that the container now is loaded. The vessel travels to multiple overseas ports, with the carrier supplying destination port unloading instructions prior to arrival at the designated arrival port.
The container is eventually unloaded at the appropriate destination port. At this point, it may still need to be moved to an inland port via rail, barge, and then truck (based on the ultimate destination), with the carrier typically notifying customs and a receiver of at least the arrival at the first port. The receiver notifies a customs broker, and the customs broker clears the goods with customs. After approving the container's release, a receiver confirms container clearance and provides delivery instructions to a carrier. The carrier, such as a trucking company, is then notified of arrival at the destination port with paperwork to pick up the container. The port releases the container to the trucking company which then delivers the sealed container for unloading at the destination. The receiver inspects and removes the seal, unloads the container, and releases the now empty container to the trucking company. The trucking company can now return the container to an appropriate port.
It can be appreciated that each service provider in this chain has information concerning the container shipment; however the systems they use are not all compatible or even use the same language. If the original shipper (the owner of the goods inside the container) needs to track a shipment, he needs to undertake a massive data integration project with each service provider, or else contract shipment to a company that offers land changes for supply chain visibility. At a minimum, messaging standards between service providers in far-flung countries would have to be converted to a form that is suitable for use by the shipper. Even if the communication difficulties are resolved, the issue of most data being historical limits its value. For example, where a container is located isn't typically part of the data recorded—an event is recorded only when responsibility for the container changes hands, such as when it is transferred between service providers.
The quality of this information can vary widely based on the sophistication and integration of the systems utilized by the parties and as well as the quality and dedication of the individuals entering data. Many of these parties rely on some sort of manual data entry and validation by field personnel, and thus are susceptible to human error even if compatible systems are in place.
Furthermore, real time security data is practically non-existent. The shipper typically places a plastic or soft metal seal on the container and records a number on their documentation. Upon receipt, the receiver confirms that the seal is still intact and that the container has not been tampered with. Thus, the first notice of a security breach is typically upon delivery at the destination, at which point it is too late to take actions to avoid inventory issues, or establish where the invasion occurred. Containerization has significantly reduced incidents of theft over break-bulk shipments, but with the increase in volume of international trade this is still a common occurrence.
With only 4% of the six million containers entering U.S. ports annually being inspected, there is also a substantial threat that dangerous materials or weapons could be imported via container, potentially bringing commerce to a stand still. There are numerous government agencies that are involved in security initiatives that could make use of better methods and techniques for tracking cargo shipments.
Numerous prior art devices and systems exist for tracking the location of mobile units, including vehicles and/or persons. These systems are capable of monitoring present position, progress along a given route, determining that an emergency has occurred, and other functions. They invariably use electronic position sensors, Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, Long Range Navigation (LORAN), or similar devices to obtain a position, and then report that position to a central location via a radio modem. In addition, cargo security systems that involve provisioning for physical resistance or other dissuasion methods are also known in some depth.
The problem with these prior art systems is that none address the fact that an owner of the cargo itself does not have ownership of a container in which cargo is shipped, nor does a cargo owner or other shipper have any control over the equipment utilized to move the container in various transportation modes. It is unrealistic to expect shippers of international goods to purchase a fleet of containers simply to satisfy their own information needs. The ocean carrier typically provides containers as a cost of doing business. It would certainly not be practical for hundred thousands of small imports/exporters to each have their own container.
Government agencies might be enlisted to mandate that ocean carriers install tracking devices on every container in their fleet, but the scope of each government's authority in coordinating this makes it a remote possibility that this would ever occur worldwide.
It is also the case that only certain shipments are worth the effort to be tracked. For example, certain shippers might not wish to pay additional money associated with tracking shipments for which risk of theft is minor or insignificant, such as in the case of grain shipments and the like. However other shipments which might include, for example, consumer electronics and or newly manufactured vehicles, would potentially be worth the effort to track real time to the shipper.
Two types of security devices are typically used in the market today that provide for limited protection of cargo containers. These include physical locks and electronic seals.
A physical lock is a straightforward device. One closes both of the doors that are typically on the rear of a shipping container, and places locks on each door handle. Variations on this approach include bars, cables and housings. Unfortunately, these approaches have problems including: key distribution to recipients and/or loss of the key in transit to open the lock; custom requirements to inspect the locked container's contents upon arrival at a port; and the possibility that forced entry will occur through means other than the door, such as by removal of door hinges, access pins, prying of side panels and the like.
A second approach is to attach an electronic seal that records a variety of activities. The seal can typically be interrogated by a data collection device. The collection device is typically a hand held device that can, for example, document an action such as a door being opened. These systems typically lack the ability to transmit the information independently of ground personnel or ground systems, and thus cannot be used to monitor cargo in-transit. A more elaborate data solution exists that can interrogate and save data on the electronic seal—but an extensive network of proximity actuators is necessary to be placed throughout the entire intermodal journey with this approach as well.
Prior art asset management/recovery systems, like the well known LoJack™ system in the United States, are solutions that permanently attach a wireless transceiver to a mobile object such as a truck or car. The transceiver range and the type of data it provides is highly dependent upon the application and depend upon the vehicle remaining in range of terrestrial radio networks.
While both electronic seals and the asset management systems may deter and/or document entry into a container, they do not provide an opportunity to react quickly. A more proactive stance is required involving security breaches, not just from the security threat to standpoint but also from an inventory management perspective as well. A recipient cannot utilize compromised cargo, and alternatives need to be set in motion by the shipper as soon as possible to mitigate damages once a container has been breached, such as to ship duplicate goods.
Asset management solutions also only track the mobile equipment—not the cargo—and would represent a significant capital cost if deployed worldwide. For example, an asset management solution may track a truck or a ship but not the particular container carried by a truck or a ship. Given the competitive nature of the shipping industry, the cost associated with outfitting every container and/or truck with a tracking device has been thought to be prohibitive. The probability of carriers installing these devices on all of their modes of transportation any time soon is therefore quit slim. It is also unlikely that shippers will be willing to forego competitive pricing, in order to select only those carriers which make an investment to track their transportation equipment.